Quote:It's more than likely the drivers are not installed (They should be)

How many users are using exFAT? FAT sounds for me like a very very antiquated and STONE OLD file system, I never would use this FS.

FAT is obsolete, agree. It doesn't allow files over 4 GB.
exFAT is newer than FAT and FAT32; it allows any size.
exFAT is compatible between Windows, MAC and Linux (writable).

Plus, it seems it is better for intensive writing than NTFS, e.g. using transmission (I am a heavy torrent user):

Quote:[...]
exFAT does not have as much of the operational overhead of NTFS as it lacks many features that add complexity (and therefore processing time and disk latency) to the filesystems.
[...]
However, exFAT should be a true competitor to NTFS on systems with limited processing power and memory. NTFS on flash memory has been known to be inefficient for quite some time. exFAT’s smaller footprint/overhead makes it ideal for this purpose. http://superuser.com/questions/257646/why-should-i-use-exfat-over-ntfs-on-removable-media

Quote:[...]
exFAT can be used where the NTFS file system is not a feasible solution (due to data structure overhead), yet the file size limit of the standard FAT32 file system is unacceptable.
exFAT has been adopted by the SD Card Association as the default file system for SDXC cards larger than 32 GiB.
[...]
A FUSE-based implementation named fuse-exfat, or exfat-fuse, with read/write support is available for FreeBSD and multiple Linux distributions. A kernel implementation has also been released, written by Samsung. It was initially released on GitHub unintentionally, and later released officially by Samsung in compliance with the GPL. None of the solutions can become an official part of Linux due to the patent encumbered status of the exFAT filesystem.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExFAT

Plus, I read this in other raspberry pi forums:

Quote:i would use exfat, NTFS driver in linux is reverse engineered.. aka made of guess work i would not trust it.. read is fine but writing a lot like torrent would do is not recommended at least not by me!

Quote:Ok, I did some tests using rsync between ext4, NTFS and exFAT. Main conclusion: Om y system (OE 3.0.3) NTFS is the slowest, and exFAT is on par with ext4 regarding speed (not data integrity, of course).

The tests are done over a wired home network. My desktop runs Linux Mint 13 64-bit. The external drive is a 2TB 2.5" HHD, attached to a powered USB hub.